whodatmiami
11d ago
They move to the whitest POSSIBLE areas though like Pleasanton or Livermore or Palo Alto. There's a lot of areas in the Bay that have lots of Hispanics that middle class white people would never move to if they had a choice. Especially if they have kids. I think you're missing a massive piece of the argument which is that there are literally no all white cities in California and haven't been for decades. But there are massive economic reasons to go there, so they will deal with the diversity even if they don't like it. And when they do move there, if they have the means to do so, will move to the place with the most white people.
And I think you are also forgetting a lot of people on the right hate California and would never move there period.
whodatmiami
11d ago
Yeah but he is old so has experienced both. For him it's not a hypothetical. Which is why he is so against what is happening.
How old are you? Because people on the right (and some on the left) have been talking about deporting illegal Mexicans my whole life. This is such a ridiculous argument you are making if you are not in your early twenties.
Who do you think this was targeting 30 years ago in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187
You're just flat out wrong if you are "confident that if all the illegals had been Mexicans(most aren’t these days), immigration would not be a top political issue." It has been a top political issue for decades, and during most of that time period, the majority were Mexicans. And they are still a plurality of the migrants anyway.
Imagine this scenario: Tomorrow, 100% of the illegal immigrants in the US are Mexican. Is it no longer an issue? MAGA and conservatives now support open borders? Or do you think they will want those illegals deported?
Editing this just to add one more point. Trump literally made illegal immigration from Mexico in 2015 one of his biggest campaign issues. His infamous “not sending their best” speech was clearly about Mexican illegals. This isn’t even debatable.
whodatmiami
11d ago
I would argue most people probably think the majority are Mexican. They probably just assume most Central Americans are just Mexicans. But even if somehow the average person knows the updated numbers (they don't), it is understood that millions of Mexicans will be deported.
I'm not even sure what you are arguing. Do you not think the average MAGA person who wants mass deportations of illegals doesn't want the millions of illegal Mexicans in the US deported along with all other illegal migrants? It is understood by anyone who supports this policy that Mexicans will be one of the top groups deported (and they are correct, by the very source you cited). And these same people have wanted these people deported for 50 years, so the changing demographics of where they come from is irrelevant. Deporting illegal Mexicans has been something they always wanted!
whodatmiami
11d ago
So you think conservatives and MAGA are cool with the millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico that currently live in the US? Are they getting a pass because Americans like them as neighbors so much? When they ask for papers and start deporting, Mexicans are going to be spared because they are such great neighbors to MAGA people in Texas?
whodatmiami
11d ago
The number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico dropped to 4.0 million in 2022 from a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. Mexico has long been, and remains, the most common country of birth for unauthorized immigrants.
I don't think Hanania's points are very good. There are just so many non-white people now in the US that it is impossible to avoid them. And being very white isn't the only thing people look for in a neighborhood or place to live. They might choose to live in NYC or LA for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean a lot of them wouldn't prefer their cities and communities to be whiter.
why it would be a bad thing for whites and Asians to intermarry and their countries become more integrated, he retreats to some wishy-washy petty nationalist
Would you rather live in 1950's California as a white person or future California in a post-racial one where everyone is mixed and from all around the world and there is no unifying culture or set of values other than "diversity is our strength". Obviously that ship has sailed, but if I had a time machine I know which one I'm choosing.
whodatmiami
11d ago
Depends on the type of Mexican. There's a neighborhood about 5 minutes away from me that no white person would willingly live in and it is all Mexicans. It is an incredibly unsafe neighborhood. I think all the white people who used to live there didn't like them very much as neighbors. And of course, Trump ran on mass deportations. Who do you think those people were understood by everyone to be?
whodatmiami
14d ago
Temporary workers are immigrants and the vast majority will stay anyway.
whodatmiami
14d ago
A lot of the immigrants in Canada are unskilled though from what I understand. They are working retail and Uber eats type jobs.
whodatmiami
14d ago
People actually believe it though. I’ve legitimately had people tell me that queen was a black woman. But I’m not talking about that. Every movie now or television show that comes out has Black Anglo Saxons or Vikings or whatever. Look at the casting of a Gentleman in Moscow. They have dark black Slavs with dreadlocks and they play it 100% straight. I actually don’t care about that too much. It’s the no actually it’s true that comes out in mainstream publications afterwards.
whodatmiami
14d ago
Most people who believe that stuff believe because people who are considered experts say it’s true. Then that gets pushed downstream. It’s actually an extremely small group of people pushing this revisionism. If some extremely motivated people cared about this, the only response they would have is why do care and to call them weird. I’ve actually gotten people who pretend to believe it admit it’s not true by saying that a multicultural black England with a large black upper class would mean that blacks were largely responsible for the European side of the Atlantic slave trade. There’s just not a will to call people out on obvious bullshit.
whodatmiami
14d ago
Why is it pointless speculation when there is overwhelming evidence against how it’s represented today? It seems pretty clear to me there is an agenda behind pushed and people are distorting the facts. If people accepted what you said is true then that would be one thing, but there are people who want to open up this debate so if they want to open it up then we should have it. It seems to me there is essentially a conspiracy to prove places like England were always diverse. And that’s just obviously not true. We know which groups migrated there in large numbers, and those people weren’t black. This should be settled, but there’s a lot of people who are lying and they should be called out for it and have their reputations destroyed as serious academics.
whodatmiami
14d ago
That is post Age of Discovery though. The Atlantic Slave Trade had started by then and the Medieval ages ended over 100 years ago by then.
whodatmiami
14d ago
Yeah this is an example of what people will do. There were Berbers in Europe who are African. Yes, and? Berbers aren’t black sub Saharan Africans so you didn’t show anything. It’s irrelevant. They are completely different genetically and culturally.
whodatmiami
14d ago
Berbers weren’t and aren’t black sub Saharans. You have the motte and bailey reversed. The bailey is there were black Africans in Europe when the motte is that they were North African Berbers, Phoenicians, and Arabs for the most part. But they use the fact that they are “African” to make them black Africans. Obviously there would be Mediterranean people in the Mediterranean. I said black specifically as in Black sub Saharan Africans, not non white people period.
whodatmiami
15d ago
Is there any evidence of black people in Europe prior to the Age of Discovery in anything other than essentially zero? I don't mean non-white people such as Berbers or Arabs. I mean sub-Saharan blacks. From everything I've read by experts, there were basically none. Due to the Saharan desert being a massive barrier, there was almost zero gene flow, especially into Northern Europe which have close to 0 sub-Saharan African DNA. The British Isles are slightly higher at like 0.1% due to some North African traders (almost exclusively not black) during the Roman Empire.
On top of the genetic evidence, there's the fact that most of Europe was 99% plus white within living memory. It wasn't until after WW2 and the Windrush generation in England that they saw significant non-white people move in. But even in 1950, it was over 99% white.
Yet anytime someone chud complains online about black people in Medieval England in video games or film, you'll get academics coming out saying that it was actually more diverse than we thought and that black people have always been present in England. I can't really find any evidence of this. Even sources that want to tell this story will say something like there were 15,000 black people in England during the height of the African slave trade out of a population of 8 million and they were mostly in port cities.
Are these people just straight up lying? Are they so influenced by ideology they can't see what is obviously true or false? I honestly don't know what evidence they are looking at that makes them think what they think. And just for reference, in 1991, the UK did its first racial census. It was less than 1% black then after 40 years of mass immigration. I think England had the highest at 1.5%, but again, that's where the Windrush generation settled as opposed to Scotland or Wales. But you play BG3, and 15% of it is black and if you say this is kind of ridiculous you're a chud. Is there any even remotely convincing argument for this kind of representation?
whodatmiami
16d ago
I would agree with you here. I'd do the same thing to be honest.
whodatmiami
17d ago
They usually get trained for two jobs. The first is to help with migrations to the cloud. We need more people since they are acquiring a lot of companies. Then they also get cross trained as sys admins or network engineers since we need more of those too. On top of that, they also stay at the site they are at and continue that job doing IT support. I don't think the guys running the show want to come in and fire people when they acquire the companies, so they keep them on to kind of show everyone at that site everything will be fine. But they have to do something with them because they don't have anything on prem anymore to support. So I think it's a charitable one in a way so they don't rock the boat. But it's also a business one because these guys are usually underpaid. If they had to hire someone to do this in a high cost of living area, the pay would be much higher. So if they're good, they get a cheap employee. But they also leave because of that.
whodatmiami
17d ago
Just to be clear. They are bad when they first get hired. They are good after being trained, which is why they leave. The thing is the pay system for them is weird because they are brought on at their current salary when they company is acquired. So even if you bumped them up 20k they would still be underpaid by industry standards.
whodatmiami
18d ago
I've be thinking about the h1b debate and who can be trained. Without doxxing myself, I work for a hedge fund that is buying lots of small engineering companies. Most of these companies have pretty terrible IT people. Despite having on prem DCs and a NAS, they have no idea what they are doing. Migrating them to our Azure tenant is pretty easy, but we are stuck with a bunch of useless IT people (initially), usually White. It's nothing agains them, but they usually know nothing. I don't want to bore anyone with the details, but these people have no idea how a domain controller works, let alone anything in the cloud.
That being said, 90% of the time we can train them up in two to three months. Half of them within a year have left to take senior admin jobs. One of them even got a job at Google.
I guess I don't even know where I'm going with this, but the point is we trained these guys up in Azure and AWS, and instead of sticking around and thanking us for training them, they leave as soon as they had a better opportunity.
So the h1b? Yeah companies want them because they can't leave. You train an American? They're gone in 6 months. As soon as you train an American, they are gone. They are looking for a better job. You teach an American anything, and they put in on their resume.
I guess what I'm saying is this. It's almost impossible to keep talented Americans on your payroll long term. It makes sense to have h1bs when you consider this.
whodatmiami
18d ago
Well yes, but a lot of those people actually are trad on those issues so it's not really in good faith. I'm personally not really concerned about gay rights or feminism and I still want net negative Arab migration. The truth is they just don't want any Arabs period, and that is just an excuse.
whodatmiami
20d ago
Yeah it's crazy. But I've worked with Canadians for a while remotely and they weren't super anti-immigrant until it became mostly Indians. I remember some cultural clashes with Chinese immigrants in Vancouver, but nothing like now with Indians.
whodatmiami
20d ago
I actually do think it's about Indians. Look what's going on in Canada right now. I'm going to make a post about this, but I actually think that the H1B thing is secondary to the Indian piece of it. I think people really don't like working with Indians or living near them, and this is a way to not sound racist. If I had to compare it to something, I'd compare it to Muslim immigration in Europe. You're not allowed to just straight up say I don't want MENA immigration, so they go for the anti-woman and anti-gay angle to make it acceptable. What they really want to say is they don't want Arabs period, and that is an indirect way of saying that. The H1B angle is basically a way to say I don't want to work with or for Indians without sounding racist. There is certainly an economic piece to it too, but if these were Poles, Japanese, Filipinos, and Ukrainians, I am 100% positive people wouldn't be nearly as nasty about it.
I said possible. There are very few majority white cities in the Bay Area. And when I lived out there, the ones I mentioned were much whiter, but had lots of Asians and Indians moving in like crazy. The demographics were changing quickly. But this is irrelevant to what I was saying because as I mentioned they move to the whitest city possible, not that they move to a white majority city. I didn’t say they moved to majority white cities because those are incredibly rare and out of reach for all but the wealthiest.
I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to say with your comment. What point are you trying to make with this? How is this even relevant? 48% white is about as white as it will get there.
More options
Context Copy link